Hi, I have been playing this game for a while and I enjoy it quite a bit. There are a few things I think could be improved though.

1. Attaching units to a HQ currently reduces the command points (CP) of that HQ by 1 per unit. But you can still attach units if the HQ has 0 command points. I think attaching units should require the HQ to have a minimum number of command points needed, so you cannot attach at 0 CP.

2. On the subject of 1, I feel the CP penalty for assigning an entire Soviet infantry divisions (3 units)/tank corps (4 units) should be reduced by one, to 2 and 3 CP respectively. This would help the Soviets reorganize their army better and to better deploy their reserves. If the player wants to assign individual units instead of as a group, then the usual CP costs apply.

3. A HQ should not be allowed to play a card on a newly attached unit.

4. I feel when playing a card, the HQ should have at least 50 AP, and furthermore, after playing a card the commander cannot be reassigned for that turn.

5. Why does reassigning a Soviet unit also cost pp, but this is not the case for the Germans?

6. Reinforcement cards are extremely powerful, especially if you play it at the front, it comes with 100% readiness/AP. I think to make it more realistic, these cards should I) require rail capacity equal to the strategic transfer value from STAVKA/OHK II) all units deployed in this manner should have the same penalty as if it were railed in (0 AP/50% readiness) III)the player chooses which HQ to attach the unit to; cannot attach to HQ with insufficient CP.

7. It would be interesting to tie the overall German supply levels to the number of VP they control. Historically the further the Germans advanced, the most serious their logistical issues, but in this game, as long as you control the roads/railways, supply is no problem. I think to simulate this, make it so that the more VP the German player controls, the less supply/oil he receives.

Hi Vic, you have put additional informations in the errata document that comes with the new patches. Could you explain in the next version of this document how is calculated the initial amount of APs of a unit ? The manual describes the effect of command and control rule on the number of APs. But there seem to be other factors. Thanks for your work.

Maybe have an option in the prefrences tab to have a checkbox appering when we're about to move a unit out of FULL-supply range simular to what we get when're about to move an air-unit to a damaged city (giving us a confirm or abort option).

Something like...

"YOU ARE ABOUT TO MOVE TO A HEX 135 AP'S FROM YOUR SUPPLY SOURCE. RESUPPLY WILL BE LIMITED. CONFIRM YES/NO"

that is a great idea to have as an option while one becomes familiar with the game mechanics

The worse one for me was in my campaign as Germans against Isokron, I moved my engineer unit by mistake when he was supposed to be fixing a vital supply bridge. The only thing with undo is how it would cope with hidden units though, i.e. you move a unit which then discovers hidden enemy units through recon; you shouldnt be able to undo that move with what you have discovered - maybe leading to an attack by other units or withdrawing.

It seems to me that the Soviet AI is too agressive in the beginning of the Campaign game. The Soviets counterattack too often and also don't retreat in areas where they have an extended position. This behavior enables me to encircle a lot of units that I feel shouldn't be at that risk.

It seems to me that the Soviet AI is too agressive in the beginning of the Campaign game. The Soviets counterattack too often and also don't retreat in areas where they have an extended position. This behavior enables me to encircle a lot of units that I feel shouldn't be at that risk.

You mean the Uranus Campaign?

Seriously, not sure which campaign you mean...I would think that during the Case Blue one, the computer is trying to retreat back in good order, since his line is getting perforated...

And in Trappenjagd, the whole point is the Soviets are launching an offensive to try and cut off Kharkov.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

The worse one for me was in my campaign as Germans against Isokron, I moved my engineer unit by mistake when he was supposed to be fixing a vital supply bridge. The only thing with undo is how it would cope with hidden units though, i.e. you move a unit which then discovers hidden enemy units through recon; you shouldnt be able to undo that move with what you have discovered - maybe leading to an attack by other units or withdrawing.

look, if someone wants to cheat the game it wouldn t be too much difficulty to copy the save game file and load that one when the discovery occurs; but to have to go through all that because of an errant click makes the game mechanics the enemy and not the opponent. how hard would an undo button be ? the lack of an undo button seriously impairs my enjoyment of the game for the frustration this lack causes

I have been playing the Soviets lately and I have observed the Axis AI leading breakthroughs too often with Minor Country units. It is easy to really hurt these units if I counterattack and the losses they take hurt their nations' morale. I deliberately pass on attacking these units so the AI has more of a chance. I feel that the AI should not be using the Minor Country units so aggressively.

I'm currently playing the Uranus campaign and it is the first time I have used the dismissal rule. it is a month into the campaign and the balancing of it really seems to be working. It helps both players to focus on the strategic objectives from high command and we both seem to have enough prestige to keep us going. Apart from Stalingrad I have kept all my objectives and Olivier has taken most of his.

But what will be the real test is when I get my 'no step back' order from OKH. Hopefully I will still be able to hold onto enough to keep the game going, we shall see.

This leads me onto my first suggestion, is there any way to make the 'no step back' rules less severe? For instance, historically Stalin gave his no step back order yet at the same time gave the Soviet forces permissions for strategic retreats within the Caucasus. I like the no step back order as a strategic game function, I just think it is too strong. When the Soviets get the order the chances are they are already on the run. Perhaps the amount of prestige lost could be toned down? As mentioned above, I've yet to see the effect on the Germans but will report back when I have some experience of it. I suspect it will hit me just when I have a big hole in my lines where the minor allies used to be and it would be a shame to finish the game at a point where the Germans would be looking to give a little ground up and counter attack.

In summary, I like the no step back rule, but could it be toned down slightly to allow games to carry on a bit longer when using the dismissal rule?

Next point is the more time card. This gets very expensive very quickly. In the first versions of the game it gave 4 turns rather than four days, does this not seem more appropriate? The card very quickly becomes more expensive (I think it was up to 79pps in my game against Reconvert) so it is not a cheap get out of jail free card. I just think for the cost it should offer a bit more. Again, this helps with using the dismissal rule.

My next suggestion is particularly for the Trappenjard campaign, but to a point applies to Case Blue. In Trappenjard both Reconvert and myself (me in a couple of turns, middle of July) have ended up being dismissed (or would be if we were playing the dismissal rule). Yet we have both been very offensive minded. I am certainly not the best defender, yet Reconvert got nowhere near his objectives to save him from dismissal. Thinking off the top of my head could the Soviet player maybe have the opportunity to play an 'avoid Kharkov' card which would lead to him getting more defensive options after this? Obviously the card would have to be expensive, I would say set at a level that would mean it could be afforded by the Soviet player before he has to take Kharkov, but would mean it would use up about 90-95% of the pps he would gain up to that point. having not played the Soviet side I'm presuming this card isnt already there?

I dont know the solution to this, but some fine tuning is needed, I think Reconvert may have some suggestions.

Another suggestion is could there be an equivalent card to the 'more time' card for defensive actions? Not sure how it would work, but if you played the card you didnt have to hold objectives for so long? Again make it expensive like the more time card, but make it worthwhile to use?

Anyway, just musings really, what I really like about this game is the fact that High Command interferes with your strategic decisions and now playing a game with the dismissal rule on it really does give a full flavour of the high command interference. Yes people will have their own strategies, but it means that you are always playing with the historical situation in mind. I dont think it needs large scale changes, just some fine tuning needed as it would be great if most games could be played with the full rules on without an early dismissal being very probable for minor mistakes.

I can only comment on the dismissal rule in Trappenjagd (full campaign) and I agree that playing this scenario with dismissal on has to lead to a very early end of the game. Please fix this rule with a coming official patch. This rule could make the game a lot more interesting, but right now (1.04beta) it's an early game killer.

In my game with Bonners (me playing Soviet side) my window of opportunity to take Kharkow vanished at turn 6 after 2 mud turns plus repeated c&c-penalties for my offensive armies (in which I had set up good/excellent generals to avoid out of depth penalties). So I couldn't take Kharkow and the minor offensive orders I drew were covered by or were way behind strong German divisions, impossible for me to fulfill.

As I was able to keep Bonners out of Voronezh, Millerowo and Rostow (my AAR needs a lot of catching up, sorry...) my strategic situation never dropped below 5, so I couldn't start to get defensive objectives. Therefore I would have been fired by the dismissal rule in early june.

In the second half of july Bonners would have fallen victim to this rule too. I was able to hold on to all of his major objectives, and not taking Vonorezh, Millerowo and Rostow will break his neck prestigepoint-wise.

My suggestion for Soviet orders in Trappenjagd: Don't let the Soviet players draw additional offensive minor orders until they have taken or have failed to take Kharkow. After not taking Kharkow they should start to get defensive orders, which would make the game playable for the russian side with dismissal on. Not getting defensive orders inevitably has to lead to an early dismissial. I have yet to see an AAR where this is not true in Trappenjagd.

I don't know if the Axis player should get some relief too. Maybe if he can't take one of his first major goals (Voronezh/Millerowo/Rostow) the cost of the more time card should significantly drop permanently until the soviet strategic situation has risen to 6. And probably the more time card should always cost way less and always allow substantially more time than what it gives now.

Not all people are willing/capable to modify game files to prevent an early dismissial, so I really hope that the dismissal mechanism will be looked at and implemented via an official patch.

*** Edit: Added a picture of the prestige point curve of my pmem vs Bonners

My friend and I noticed the dismissal problem in Trappenjagd in our first couple of attempts at playing the campaign. What I did to finally fix it was to start the Russians at a defensive Strategic position. That way all minor orders you get will be defensive ones. You will probably still lose Kharkov, but you do start with enough prestige to cover it.

I was worried that the Russians may 'run away' with prestige, but it seems to work well in our ongoing game. Here is a graph:

With his Strategic Position at 2, he is not yet facing Stalin's No Retreat order, but even if he was, he has enough prestige that he could fight his way out of it.

I for one like to have a look at the stats data. After some time squeezing all data into the same window size makes the numbers very hard/impossible to read, especially after the curves are flattened and the numbers keep getting displayed on the right side of the turn squares. Variants to improve this issue:

a) Display a fix number of turns (maybe 10?) into the window and make this display scrollable horizontally to give the ability to scroll back/forward while analyzing the data.

b) Probably easier to do: Instead of displaying numbers on the right side of the turn squares put them below and above the square (below for the side having the lower number - curve below -, above for the side with the higher number).

c) Combination of a+b

Picture to show the display problem: The data on the lower curve can't be read properly anymore.

- A recon selected hex button - An Airdrop on selected hex button - Scrolling the UI is fairly slow. If not done already, maybe render to a set of large bitmaps/textures which should be possible to move around quickly.

Don't know if these proposals have been brought up before, but I really would like to see some troop types get a bonus for specialized fighting:

a) Mountain divisions / Alpini were trained to fight in rugged terrain, so it would add some flavour to the game if these troops get a bonus for fighting in hills/wooded hills. I started to miss this bonus after I had a closer look at where my Axis troops might get lost im my newly started pbem.

b) Engineer units should give an attack bonus to troops assaulting fortifications and urban hexes. Right now I can't remember another wargame in which engineers don't help reduce fortification levels. You might argue that combat engineers are already integrated in infantry regiments, but it feels awkward that there are no ingame specialists for bunker busting.

By the way why do the minor axis allies engineers have better combat stats than german and soviet engineers? Oversight not to nerve/boost engineers from some nations or are german/soviet engineers only portrayed as intellectuals with no talents to hold a gun while the other nations send their hardworking folks equipped for combat engineer tasks?

Don't know if these proposals have been brought up before, but I really would like to see some troop types get a bonus for specialized fighting:

b) Engineer units should give an attack bonus to troops assaulting fortifications and urban hexes. Right now I can't remember another wargame in which engineers don't help reduce fortification levels. You might argue that combat engineers are already integrated in infantry regiments, but it feels awkward that there are no ingame specialists for bunker busting.

I'd like an option for a less clunky movement system which doesn't need shortcuts for every move. I suggest click once on hex/counter to select the top of the stack or individual counter depending on display mode. Click again on selected counter to select the entire hex. Allow shift+click to select/deselect individual counters on the map and in info box. Show the allowed movement for selected units. Click on another hex to move selected units. Right click anywhere to deselect.

The northern map edge and railway system REALLY needs to be fixed. Supply should come to the soviets (albeit in limited quantities) from the northern map edge, which stayed in Soviet control through the duration of the campaign. Moreover, the ability to conduct rail movement should be dependent on rail connections to both the northern and eastern map edges, not JUST to connections to the eastern map edge. Having the Luftwaffe be able to deny all rail movement in essentially the entire southern theatre of operations by blowing up all of 4 bridges(!) should definitely not happen.

_____________________________

"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking." -Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne

I gave the idea some thought...you can activate cards for the Russians that are reinforcements when the germans reach certain hexes. There was a 250k size army that attacked the Rzhev salient that would probably have been used in the south if the Germans stuck there neck out too far (along the north edge).

Then the Germans know they can push along the north, but will pay a price by 'awakening' the bear.

But then, what stops the Russians from just abandoning the north to 'entice' the germans forward? Sort of a phantom defense.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great